reply to post by purplemer
The OP has made no such demonstration and neither has the scientific community.
I posted detailed links to studies showing how those molecules are formed through stellar nucleosynthesis. So the scientific community very well
demonstrated how it works...you simply chose to ignore it
Yes we belief that molecules are created inside stars but that does not mean we understand what these building blocks actually are and what they are
An no one has claimed otherwise. All Tyson and the others state is that this is how molecules are formed, which is the simple truth. In the end it
doesn't matter how the building blocks of atoms (and again, atoms aren't energy as you incorrectly stated!) come to be as they don't make any
statements regarding this. They merely state how molecules are formed. Just like you can come up with the theory of evolution without knowing how life
started in the first place. If a giant purple unicorn created life, it still wouldn't invalidate the theory of evolution as it makes no claims
regarding how life started...and it wouldn't really change how evolution works.
So for the OP to state that evolution is fact is plain wrong.
Once again, you are wrong
as the theory of evolution is both a theory and fact...you
simply ignore every link that proves you wrong
There are many scientists who disagree with the principles of evolution on a fundamental level.
There's more scientists called Steve (not Stephen, or Steven, or any other form of the name) than scientists disagreeing with the theory of
evolution. If it were wrong, we couldn't actively apply it in modern medicine to develop vaccines, and it wouldn't be a scientific theory if anyone
could objectively "debunk" it.
Again, read up on scientific method
Yet the OP with his utube video thinks he has he can claim something a fact without addressing the fundamentals is flawed.
How exactly is it flawed if we know that's how molecules develop? It doesn't matter how the base elements of atoms form as the elements would still
form inside stars
Gravity and therm dyanimcs are theories. The possess usefulness because they facilitate us in our everyday lifes. That does not make them facts nor
does it mean we should not use them...
So does the theory of evolution because we apply it in modern medicine. And it's the same with stellar nucleosynthesis as by knowing how molecules
form, we can find ways to use that knowledge. There's TONS of potentially practical implications of this. For example: If you know how to create
every element from its basic atoms in practice, you could create any matter you wanted from basic atoms. Ever wondered how the materializers in Star
Trek would work in practice? Well, that's how! Not saying scientists can do this (yet), but knowing how those elements form in the first place is an
A theory can be measured in its usefulness.
It can...but that has ZERO implications on its validity
By the way, I think it's interesting how you simply ignored the explanation of "fact" I posted...because it highlights what nonsense you're
The one thing we agree on is that scientists don't have all the answers, and probably won't. But there's a ton of things they CAN explain, such as
evolution and how elements form....or how fast a ball will drop if you throw from a plane going xyz km/h. Those are facts and theories at the same
time as you can observe and test those theories.